"You can't criticize God" Continued

</topic>---"Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways, and how small a whisper we hear of Him!But the thunder of His power who can understand." - Job 24:14

#2Suibom(Topic Creator)Posted 1/18/2013 7:29:12 AM

Ok... Ok...

Go on.

But if you want to criticize the Christian God, the God of the Bible, then you have to accept all information provided about Him, from that source.---"Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways, and how small a whisper we hear of Him!But the thunder of His power who can understand." - Job 24:14

#3darkmaian23Posted 1/18/2013 7:56:10 AM

Historically, it is known that the Gospels were written at least a century after the death of Jesus. They were not written by anyone who had actually met Jesus in person while he was on Earth. It is often said that God divinely inspired the writing of the four Gospels and that is why they are accurate.

But the accounts in the Gospels are not identical. The overall contents are the same but there a differences, which is inconsistent with the claim that God wrote the books through human hands, for if He did so, would they not agree on every point without deviation? Are we to think that God sent forth the spirits of the disciples of Jesus to write their own accounts through living hands, so that they might give an account of what they had seen and done as it related to Christ?

Or else how do you explain the differences? Again, I will grant that they are minor but they really shouldn't be there at all if the Bible is what it is claimed to be. Is God excellent and world building but not so good at keeping track of details?

#4chareyPosted 1/18/2013 8:22:10 AM

Suibom posted...

Ok... Ok...

Go on.

But if you want to criticize the Christian God, the God of the Bible, then you have to accept all information provided about Him, from that source.

God has lied before and admitted to it so God saying he is perfect isn't proof of perfection. So the only way to judge if he is perfect is to judge his actions.

"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:" ~2 Thessalonians 2:11-12---I won't have it! I'm not having anyone talk about me inthe past tense! ~Squall Leonhart

#5ThuggernautzPosted 1/18/2013 9:23:09 AM

Suibom posted...

Ok... Ok...

Go on.

But if you want to criticize the Christian God, the God of the Bible, then you have to accept all information provided about Him, from that source.

That source is wrong on a great many number of historical details. It may well be wrong on anything attributed to God also. Each claim must be analyzed independently in order to determine the overall 'truth' of the text, as you would with any other historical source. Omniscience cannot be shown to be true. Omnipotence cannot be shown to be true. Omnibenevelonce not only cannot shown to be true, but from a brief look at human history and the current world around us, appears to be sorely lacking.

We do not have to assume the entire source is 100% valid and that everything must be accepted in order to analyze it, especially when a lot of it has been shown to be false. That is a standard which is not held for any text.

So on the other side, looking at some Godly actions taken within the bible, we can judge those from a modern reasonable standpoint as being atrocious and incredibly malevolent and vindictive were they to be attributed to a non-omniscient, omnipotent being. Were we to assume the properties discussed earlier, it leads to God's actions being indistinguishable from evil whilst somehow always being called 'good'. The whole thing becomes arbitrary nonsense and useless as a yardstick by which to base our own judgements off.

#6OogallyPosted 1/18/2013 9:53:26 AM

darkmaian23 posted...

Historically, it is known that the Gospels were written at least a century after the death of Jesus.

Uh, no it isn't. John is the latest and clocks in at around 90-100.

#7JonWood007Posted 1/18/2013 10:11:58 AM

To respond to the last posts of the last topic:

I already said this, 40 posts ago, YOU'RE the one begging the question. You're the one assuming that God is perfect. Not me.

And this why I don't want to debate with you. You shove your assumptions down my throat and then tell me they're my idea to begin with when I tell you what's wrong with them. Go back to your cave, troll.

You think God isn't perfect?

No, he does. Heck, he spent half the last topic trying to shove this idea down my throat.

I never assumed the Biblical god was perfect. I can argue he claims perfection, but I don't claim him to actually BE perfect because the evidence is inconsistent with this fact.

This is not really true. God's correctness always follows from the fact that God always makes the RIGHT decision. "Correctness" is still part of God's nature. It isn't something God predefined. It isn't something that occurs because God changes the rules to fit his image of being correct.

But clearly he doesn't, because he commits genocides and torments people in hell (at least the Biblical version). You just said it, he is perfect not as some intrinsic quality, but because he makes the right decision. Which means we can test his decisions to determine if they are in line with a perfect being. Which means we can criticize God. Which means I'm perfectly justified in criticizing genocide and eternal torment. And as far as I'm concerned, if God exists in this context then he can always respond and tell me why I'm wrong. Instead, his followers say I can't criticize him. Bullcrap. Obviously I can, and obviously any of us can. It's just that if God actually is perfect it's futile to do so because he will always prove you wrong. </topic>

You guys should not be against the concept of questioning God. QUESTION EVERYTHING. If what you question is true, then the facts will most likely speak for that.

Einstein had to be a mathematician.

Speaking of which, let's talk about Einstein for a second, and scholars in general. Einstein was not smart because he said "I'm better than math at you, don't question me." He was smart because he did math academically. Let's talk about what this entails. You know, when you get your PHD, you gotta basically stand in front of a group of professors and defend your dissertation from the toughest criticism they can muster? Do you know what peer review is? In academia, you can't just use your credentials to publish something. You need people to question it. You need people to criticize it. You need others to review it and try to tear it down. That's how science works, and that's how progress is made. WE TEST IDEAS. And not just test, we crash test them. Smash them into walls and if they survive, they're good, and if they don't, they're not and it's back to the drawing board.

If God were truly perfect, he would understand this, and his ideas would be unbreakable. To every question, to every criticism, God would have a fitting response. Because, you know, HE'S PERFECT. He wouldn't NEED to hide behind some divine privilege. Heck, if you do that, that's evidence to me your work is shady and you just want to manipulate people. No scholar worth their salt would simply hide behind credentials like the god of the Bible does. Now, are all criticisms reasonable? Probably not. But to not respond to any and hide behind divine privilege is awfully suspect to me.

As for needing to accept all assumptions in the Bible....they contradict one another. Because a perfect being would not commit acts of unnecessary suffering on a mass scale unless he had a very good reason to. And he can't be reached for comment and his followers are claiming divine privilege that he doesn't have to give his reasons. Seeing how we have very problematic actions that cast doubt on his perfection claims, I'm gonna have to claim that perfection + genocide/eternal torment = contradiction until he demonstrates that it's not. Remember, a true perfect being would be able to answer all criticism accordingly. Because, you know, he would be so much smarter than us. I've explained why I believe the actions to be immoral, and I'd argue that the burden of proof to demonstrate perfection has not been met, and until it has been met, I don't believe he's perfect. Because to do so is begging the question, as I covered in my last topic. The premise = the conclusion.---Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768

#9DarkContractorPosted 1/18/2013 10:52:30 AM(edited)

wanted to repost this, I feel like both believers and non-believers ought to remember it

A good rule of thumb to avoid self-fulfilling priori but simultaneously assume the Bible for the purposes of criticisms is to assume actions but ignore interpretations (So assume God's killings, assume Hell, assume Heaven, assume Jesus suffering in the flesh, etc. but don't assume that God did the suffering out of love, don't assume that the killing is automatically good. scrutinize everything in unison and see what you come up with)

anywhoFrom: JonWood007 | #008

As for needing to accept all assumptions in the Bible....they contradict one another. Because a perfect being would not commit acts of unnecessary suffering on a mass scale unless he had a very good reason to.

Christ suffered so in the journey to be Christlike we must suffer as well. Ot killings? As I've said multiple times if it was really God who killed them then death really isn't the end.

And he can't be reached for comment

James 1: five (lol five key is broke <_<) and yes, I HAVE found answers to questions I've prayed about the same day, sometimes same hour, record is five seconds (someone called me with the answer, could't make this up if I wanted to)

and his followers are claiming divine privilege that he doesn't have to give his reasons. Seeing how we have very problematic actions that cast doubt on his perfection claims, I'm gonna have to claim that perfection + genocide/eternal torment = contradiction until he demonstrates that it's not.

already demonstrated genocide. It's funny how you continue to bring up eternal hell? I remember one time we debated I told you that there's multiple theologies about Hell. You responded that it's all speculation anyways so it was pointless. But here you are, making an assumption about Hell that you yourself once called pointless and extrapolating it to your point in a debate. Personally, I'm not sure where I stand on Hell. A few verses make me think that we the opportunity to try and accept Jesus again post this life, but its vague. I'm absolutely positive, however, that once at the point of never gonna be with Christ you simply don't exist anymore (annihilationist theory, iirc) and I will back that up with plenty of Scripture, if anyone's curious.

Remember, a true perfect being would be able to answer all criticism accordingly. Because, you know, he would be so much smarter than us. I've explained why I believe the actions to be immoral, and I'd argue that the burden of proof to demonstrate perfection has not been met, and until it has been met, I don't believe he's perfect. Because to do so is begging the question, as I covered in my last topic. The premise = the conclusion.

this logically follows, and I have no problem admitting there's a couple passages that I have to throw my hands up in the air and say "God is good". Isaiah fifty five (MAN I NEED A NEW FIVE KEY LOL): 8 tells me that there's at least two thoughts, probably a lot more, that are impossible for me to figure out. But until I figure out which thoughts those are, I use the God is perfect mentality as personal motivation to delve deeper for an answer for skeptics. eh, this point was pretty irrelevant but I just wanted to share my two cents.---www.youtube.com/user/MisterPillow An apologetics channel on the Christian faith (And I'm better looking than Proudclad)

#10kozlo100Posted 1/18/2013 11:19:13 AM

I'd just like to say here that this is why precision of language is a good thing. When you lack it you get 500+ posts of people defending positions that aren't being attacked, attacking positions that nobody is holding, and lots of general missing of the mark due to miscommunication.---The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick